Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

[Seth Mos <seth.mos () dds nl>]

Op 18 jun. 2014, om 11:41 heeft Martin Geddes <mail () martingeddes com> het volgende geschreven:

> "IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
> users have access to IPv6 connectivity."
>
> It may never become the defacto standard, period. Nearly 20 years to reach
> 2% penetration is a strong hint that the costs outweigh the benefits.

To be fair, it is only now that there is considerable leverage to actually use IPv6 outside of a academic scope. Our 
company is ready now, and it’s just a commercial retailer. I know we are way ahead of the curve but I didn’t find it 
all that hard.

I see a lot of people crying foul, still, but IPv6 capable equipment is readily available now, and, it is up to you if 
you find it worthwhile to purchase. The worldwide IPv6 transit network is complete and most ISPs can actually deliver 
on IPv6 if you push them for it and don’t let them ship you off with „we can’t do it yet”.

As such we’ve had IPv6 at work since 2012, and we got to talk to engineers and it wasn’t really that much of a problem. 
Also, the free BGP tunnel from HE.net really is a lifesaver in getting at least backup peering in place, and that 
worked fine for over a year.

> IP's global addressing system is broken from the outset. See John Day's
> presentation "Surviving Networking’s Dark Ages - or How in the Hell Do You
> Lose a Layer!?"
> <http://irati.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1-LostLayer130123.pdf> (or,
> indeed, lots of them at once.)

I don’t know, 64 bits for the networks, and 64 bits for the hosts seems fine, although to be fair, a 96/32 split could 
have worked too, more about networks and aggregated routes, less about hosts. It’s also really good that there is a 
„absolute split” at 64 bits to designate the network prefix part. That makes network identifying a lot easier. I 
suppose that is where the shorter network prefix is coming from, it’s easier to remember.

> It's really all about scopes, not layers - the TCP/IP architecture is
> divided up the wrong way, and it will never be fixed. It's an escaped 1970s
> lab experiment that was able to extract the statistical multiplexing gain
> faster than rivals, but on a performance and security "buy now, pay later"
> basis.

I like that IPv6 is close enough to IPv4 that I can just run with it. That’s not a drawback. If you understand 
classless subnetting you can work with Ipv6. 

> May all your intentional semantics become operational,
> Martin

I didn’t find it all that hard to become operational. Not everything I have at work does IPv6, but that’s not really a 
requirement, is it?

I don’t care enough for backwards compatability with IPv4, actually, I’m really glad it isn’t so failure states are 
much easier to diagnose. I can see how IPv4.2 SP2 would have subtle issues with IPv4.3 SP1, but there is a hot fix for 
that, but not for your model. SOL.

Not very different if I must say.

Cheers,
Seth



> On 17 June 2014 23:12, Andrew Fried <andrew.fried () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > IPv6 will never become the defacto standard until the vast majority of
> > users have access to IPv6 connectivity.
> >
> > Everything I have at the colo is dual stacked, but I can't reach my own
> > systems via IPv6 because my business class Verizon Fios connection is
> > IPv4 *only*.  Yes, Comcast is in the process of rolling out IPv6, but my
> > Comcast circuit in Washington DC is IPv4 only.  And I'd suspect that
> > everyone with Time Warner, AT&T, Cox, etc are all in the same boat.
> >
> > Whether the reason for the lack of IPv6 deployment is laziness or an
> > intentional omission on the part of large ISPs to protect their income
> > from leasing IPv4 addresses doesn't matter to the vast majority of the
> > end users;  they simply can't access IPv6 via IPv4 only networks,
> > without using some kludgy, complicated tunneling protocols.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Fried
> > andrew.fried () gmail com
> >
> > On 6/17/14, 5:48 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > > On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 6/17/14 4:20 PM, "Jay Ashworth" <jra () baylink com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Here's what the general public is hearing:
> > > >
> > > > But only while they still have IPv4 addresses:
> > > > ~$ dig AAAA arstechnica.com +short
> > > > ~$
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/06/with-the-americas-ru
> > > > > nning-out-of-ipv4-its-official-the-internet-is-full/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Can't tech news sites *please* run dual stack while they're spouting
> > > > end-of-IPv4 stories?
> > >
> > > <wishful thinking=on>
> > >
> > > I would love to see a few more properties do IPv6 by default, such as
> > ARS, Twitter and a few others.  After posting some links and being a log
> > stalker last night the first 3 hits from non-bots were from users on IPv6
> > enabled networks.
> > > It does ring a bit hollow that these sites haven't gotten there when
> > others (Google, Facebook) have already shown you can publish AAAA records
> > with no adverse public impact.  Making IPv6 available by default for users
> > would be an excellent step.  People like AT&T who control the 'attwifi'
> > ssid could do NAT66 at their sites and provide similar service to the
> > masses.  With chains like Hilton, McDonalds, etc.. all having this
> > available, it would push IPv6 very far almost immediately with no adverse
> > impact compared to users IPv4 experience.
> > > - Jared